MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Modification of Dichotomous and Polytomous Item Response Theory to Structural Equation Modeling Analysis

2012· article· en· W2146332347 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Suphandee Terdsak, Yannapat Seehamongkon, Suntonrapot Dumrongphanit, Wirat Phongsiri

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural equation modelingLISRELPolytomous Rasch modelPath analysis (statistics)Item response theoryLatent variablePath coefficientStatisticsEconometricsMathematicsComputer sciencePsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the present research was to make modifications to Structural Equation modeling analysis by Dichotomous and Polytomous Item Response Theory (SEDPIRT) which consisted of 4 stages of 1) The development of structural equation modeling analysis, 2) Data simulation for analysis, 3) Verification and comparison of analysis results through the SEDPIRT with Path Analysis by LISREL (PAL) using data simulation and 4) trying-out SEDPIRT analysis with empirical data. The study resulted in a structural equation modeling analysis SEDPIRT in which a person’s true ability and attributes obtained from Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis is used for observable variables. It is assumed that such observable variables are latent with no measurement deviation for use as the data for assessing path coefficients and structural equation modeling analysis. The SEDPIRT measurement is valid and would not deviate because of changes in the tests or test takers. A verification of an analysis of simulation data showed that standard error in the estimation of every paths coefficient (Pij) and the iteration of Pij by SEDPIRT analysis is significantly less than the PAL at the .01 level of significance and the root mean squared residuals of SEDPIRT and PAL are not significantly different, although the SEDPIRT analysis yields a model with greater validity than the PAL at the .01 level of significance. The SEDPIRT analysis model shows a model validation of 97.50 % while the PAL one shows 77.50%, and all path coefficients of the SEDPIRT and PAL are positively correlated at the .01 level of significance. It was found from applying the two techniques to empirical data that standard error in the estimation of all the path coefficients, the root mean square residual of the deviation, the number of iteration and the adjustment count in an attempt to make the two models consistent with empirical data in the SEDPIRT are less than the PAL; the Goodness-of Fit Index (GFI) and the Adjusted Goodness-of Fit Index(AGFI) in the SEDPIRT are more than the PAL; and path coefficients of the SEDPIRT and PAL show a positive correlation at the .01 level of significance with a Pearson-product moment correlation coefficient of .869. Key words: Structural equation modeling analysis by Dichotomous and Polytomous Item Response Theory (SEDPIRT); Path analysis by LISREL (PAL); Grade- Response Model (GRM); Three parameter logistic model

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.124
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.124
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.381
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.086 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207